The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism


by Sunny Hundal    
8:50 am - March 13th 2012

      Share on Tumblr

In recent weeks I’ve pointed to several blatant examples of bias in the London Evening Standard towards Boris Johnson in the upcoming election.

Yesterday the free-sheet splashed with a report from Peter Dominiczak and Craig Woodhouse claiming that Moody’s ratings agency has warned “London’s transport would face collapse” if Ken Livingstone implements his fares cut.

The story was so dishonest it looks like the paper has given up journalism during the London Mayoral election.

1. Contrary to the Standard’s screaming headline, ‘Ken Livingstone’s fares cut damned by City’, the Moody’s report does not mention Ken or the mayoral election at all.

2. It claimed: “Moody’s has for the first time highlighted to investors that TfL operates in a ‘highly politicised environment, which may affect the levels at which it may set fares’.”

Rubbish. Moody’s has said similar in the past. In November 2009, just after Boris Johnson had announced major fares rises, Moody’s said something similar: “Whilst fares and congestion charges are fully under the control of the Mayor of London, the need to provide services at politically acceptable prices limits how much can be raised.”

In June 2010, it said: “TfL also functions in a highly politicised environment, which may affect the levels at which it may set fares”. Ken Livingstone didn’t announce his fares cut policy until October 2011.

3. The Evening Standard deliberately ignored the main message of Moody’s report (PDF, see page 4): that Transport for London has built up £1bn worth of surpluses – just as Ken has argued and despite Boris Johnson’s repeated denials.

In fact the Moody’s report confirms Ken’s point that Boris Johnson’s massive fares rises have created unused cash surpluses at TfL, which can be used to cut fares.

4. The report also shows that this fares surplus has not been used to fund new investment as Boris Johnson has claimed.

Instead the Evening Standard helpfully gave Boris Johnson another nice plug on page 28.


(images via @sturdyAlex)

Why is the paper even pretending to be neutral any more?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,London Mayor ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Mydogsgotnonose

Why should Londoners be offered a tax dodger as a Labour candidate?

Peter Dominiczak is the name that keeps on cropping up.

His fingers are on more or less every pro-Boris story. And when you see that he came from the Yorkshire Post, the ability to lean right should come as no surprise. You don’t have to be right-wing to work on the YP, but if not, you need to do a pretty good impression that you are:

http://zelo.tv/wn7k1R

The YP has had its fingers in all sorts of stuff over the years. Reprinting the Salisbury Review article and single-handedly kicking off the Honeyford Affair was probably the most notorious.

Londoners must be a strange lot if they worry about how much international credit rating agencies think they should pay on the bus.

My guess is they don’t, and the strange lot are the journalists who are desperate enough to think they can persuade Londoners to worry about how much international credit rating agencies think they should pay on the bus. And the people who pay said journalists.

Hang on, just had an email from Standard and Poors. Something about my bins…

So, the “City” thinks fares should be high then?

I think this is hardly likely to get the majority of people who are sceptical of the “City” onside.

A headline that could quite easily backfire.

The Evening Standard *were* giving neutral commentary on the Mayor election until the poll that came out that showed Ken running neck and neck with Boris. At that point they seem to have panicked and turned into a Sun/Mirror style propaganda tabloid. It’s obvious that whilst Boris held a healthy lead that they were willing to hold the pretence of giving ‘balanced’ reporting, but when they realised that Ken had a chance of winning, they came out with the knives. Really sad that for a paper that claims to be a ‘quality’ newspaper that they have compromised that quality. In addition, as the only main London newspaper, they’re failing Londoners in their duty to bring balanced coverage of the election. Very difficult to take what the ES says seriously at present on this topic.

In fact the Moody’s report confirms Ken’s point that Boris Johnson’s massive fares rises have created unused cash surpluses at TfL, which can be used to cut fares.

I’m not sure that it does, you know. I assume that this is what you’re pointing to:

In total, TfL completed the 2010/11 budget ahead of projections, making an additional GBP1.0 billion of grant and other sources available for capital spending, which is now included in the current 2011/12-14/15 plan and which reflects the CSR 2010.

But what Ken’s pledging is:

“We will carry out this ‘Fare Deal’ without cutting future investment or hitting services, which are funded by a separate budget”

And since this additional £1bn is accounted for by capital spending, the only way Livingstone could use it to cut fares would be by cutting investment. As has already been pointed out by that notoriously biased bastion of Tories, Channel 4.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/can-ken-livingstone-deliver-a-fare-deal-for-london

But anyway, as has been said every time you run this story, why should the Evening Standard be neutral in the Mayoral election? Can we expect angry pieces here every time the Mirror runs a stupid anti-Tory story?

@Tim J (comment 6): “why should the Evening Standard be neutral in the Mayoral election?” – there’s nothing that says it has to be of course. However, you’d hope as the only London-wide regional newspaper that it would represent all Londoners. If it goes down their current tabloidesque route then it’s clearly going to fail to do that.

You mention The Mirror being anti-Tory – The Mirror is not what I’d call a quality newspaper. If you read some of the ES editorial pieces on their circulation figures, you’ll find that they refer to themselves as a “quality” newspaper – they want to claim to be in the same league as the Guardian/Times/Independent/Telegraph. If they want to go down the tabloid propaganda route then that’s up to them, but in that case they shouldn’t complain if people start to expose them for what they really are, rather than what they claim to be.

8. Anon E Mouse

Sunny Hundal

And how many articles have you blogged regarding the BBC and the Guardian and Independent newspapers being biased towards the coalition government particularly the shrill and complete scare mongering about the NHS changes?

The problem you have is that you just don’t like it when the Labour candidate gets rightly monstered by the press for his hypocritical stance on tax avoidance and lying about his opponent Boris Johnson. He’s supposed to be a socialist for goodness sake Sunny.

What would be better for Labour supporters would be if people who supported the party started addressing the issues with the candidates – especially rank hypocrisy.

This is a great left wing blog but if people are allowed to continue to support candidates like Ken Livingston who are clearly dishonest and unfit for office it does the national party no favours and just allows the government to have a free hand…

However, you’d hope as the only London-wide regional newspaper that it would represent all Londoners.

Why? It’s a newspaper with opinions. It supported Boris in 2008, and was vocal in its opposition to Ken before that too.

they want to claim to be in the same league as the Guardian/Times/Independent/Telegraph.

They have a way to go before they produce anything as one-sided, misleading, inflammatory and generally ridiculous as the Guardian during the 2008 election. When the Standard starts printing cartoons that show Ken Livingstone as Hitler threatening to gas “Judens und Schwartzers” then they might be close to hitting parity.

Its not just any old newspaper with opinions – its handed out free to hundreds of thousands of commuters every day, most of whom probably arent rabid tories but will nonetheless subconsciously absorb the steady drip of negative headlines day after day. This level of access shouldnt be allowed without strict regulation on bias and partiality, otherwise its just free propaganda for the tory party with a vast reach. How is that democratic?

This level of access shouldnt be allowed without strict regulation on bias and partiality.

Freedom of speech kiddo. Newspapers are perfectly entitled to form their own opinions and there’s absolutely no requirement for neutrality. Nor should there be.

This article appears rather misguided.

What is wrong with a newspaper preferring one candidate over another? This Blog does it all the time! so does the Guardian, so does the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Spectator, etc, etc.

It is not wrong, it is called freedom of speech. I understand that there is a militant part of the left wing that will vote red because it is red, and whom would secretly prefer freedom of speech didn’t exist so long as everyone agreed with them. However, it is turning into hypocritical nonsense and the chief proponents of it are the far left I refer to.

They claim they campaign for free speech and press freedom, but then scream and shout bloody murder when someone has a different opinion to their own. Where on the Evening standard does it have written “we are a non-partisan newspaper”? It doesn’t, they are allowed to print whatever they want (within the law). You might not like it but tough, that is what freedom of speech brings with it whether you like it or not. That same left wing (which includes Ken) insults a sector of society (the ‘rich’) calling them ‘ba**ards’ whilst all the while doing exactly what they are doing. There is of course nothing illegal about doing what Ken and these ‘rich ba**ards’ did, but it reeks of hypocrisy to an extent that only the Breznev inner party has bettered.

I believe that people have a right to mitigate tax by all legal means, but at least I don’t go around preaching my sanctimonious rubbish about people being somehow lower than myself because they are ‘rich’ tax dodgers when really I know nothing about them or their personal tax affairs and am conducting myself in the exact same manner. Can it not therefore be concluded that Ken Livingstone is a ‘rich bas**rd’ who doesn’t ‘get it’? I think by a process of deduction it can. How is a person of that description a suitable mayor?

As for the Moody’s report and as countless sources have said, the surpluses are not simply there to lob at any part of the network you choose. They are there for the continued development of the network (that is what is keeping the rating higher). Moody’s has correctly identified the fact that when you spend that money on something that does not improve services, services will eventually breakdown, and when that happens prices of fares on a substandard system will have to increase to pay for repairs. Moody’s has identified that such action will lead to medium – long term uncertainty for revenue streams and potentially lead to higher borrowing costs from a downgrade.

freedom of speech should not mean the freedom of rich unelected vested interests to control the debate using their de facto monopoly over free commuter reading material.

A free paper given out in front of stations should be highly regulated, otherwise its the freedom to influence the outcome of an election because you have lots of money, which is a net loss of freedom for everyone else.

‘This article appears rather misguided.

What is wrong with a newspaper preferring one candidate over another? This Blog does it all the time! so does the Guardian, so does the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Spectator, etc, etc.’

So you don’t see any difference between an internet blog and a free paper given out by the hundreds of thousands every day to the captive audience of commuters?

A free paper given out in front of stations should be highly regulated, otherwise its the freedom to influence the outcome of an election because you have lots of money, which is a net loss of freedom for everyone else.

It should be treated no differently to any other newspaper. The Guardian, on the eve of the 08 election:

Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone

If that’s ‘permissible’ then pretty much anything is. What you’re arguing for is a requirement of “political neutrality” in the print media. And that really is anathema to freedom.

The Standard’s grip on electoral propaganda is easily loosened. I took great pleasure in stuffing an unread stack of them into a recycling bin outside Camden tube yesterday, and I’d encourage every other Londoner who wants a fairer future to do the same.

The Standard’s grip on electoral propaganda is easily loosened. I took great pleasure in stuffing an unread stack of them into a recycling bin outside Camden tube yesterday, and I’d encourage every other Londoner who wants a fairer future to do the same.

18. Torquil Macneil

Thanks for that link Tim J, very funny. I especially enjoyed Viviennne Westwood’s brilliant exposition of democratic principles:

“IIt just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don’t vote for Ken”

@Joe

“A free paper given out in front of stations should be highly regulated”

By who??? the government? so that they can go and protect their own interests? Bit dim know?

If something is free, that usually means it’s paid for by someone else. If they’re paying hundreds of people to force this free object into your hands, they are usually expecting some sort of positive result for themselves.

The fact that both the Standard and City AM (and many other loss-making papers) represent the interests of the very wealthy and of leaders of commerce – i.e. support Boris Johnson, a man who appears to exist for almost no other reasons – should not be particularly surprising.

21. Torquil Macneil

“The fact that both the Standard and City AM (and many other loss-making papers) represent the interests of the very wealthy”

You mean tax dodging 1%-ers like … er … Ken Livingston?

22. Shatterface

It’s hard to believe that a ‘neutral’ newspaper would be any more sympathetic to an odious hypocrite like Livingstone. Neutral coverage would be based on his current behaviour, not nostalgia for the Thatcher-baiting ’80s.

I pity Londoners having to chose between a reptile and a buffoon.

23. Shatterface

If something is free, that usually means it’s paid for by someone else. If they’re paying hundreds of people to force this free object into your hands, they are usually expecting some sort of positive result for themselves.

Can we hear your definition of the word ‘force’ as I don’t think it means what you think it means.

That “positive result” generally consists of higher ad revenues.
Papers give their customers what they believe their customers want.
(e.g. a load of conspiracy theory ranting from Pilger types in the Guardian, Littlejohn rants in the Mail, etc.)

In any event since Mr Lebedev also owns the Independent he doesn’t seem to be forcing a particular political line across his titles!

That would be the Independent that has been crawling in a slow but steady fashion towards the right, with a recent editorial supporting Lansley’s cowardly and illegal refusal to release the risk register, for example?

‘If that’s ‘permissible’ then pretty much anything is. What you’re arguing for is a requirement of “political neutrality” in the print media. And that really is anathema to freedom.’

No it isnt. I am merely arguing that access to vast quantities of ill-gotten gains shouldnt give you a louder voice than everyone else in a democracy, or else it isn’t a democracy.

Freedom of speech (which is sacrosanct) isnt the same thing as freedom to use cash to disseminate your self-aggrandizing message in any way you see fit.

Like everything else the sociopathic, subhuman right fight for, it boils down to wanting a society where it’s one pound, one vote, not one person, one vote.

Good call Sunny but you missed the most ridiculous claim from the article:

Daniel Moylan, the deputy chairman of Tfl, warned that a fares cut would lead to a “downward spiral” due to more than £1?billion of lost revenue. “The big worry here is that you could end up in a Greece situation,” he said. “You could end up with a spiral of downward credit rating, higher borrowing costs, inability to borrow and failure to deliver investment plan and maintain services. London today — Athens tomorrow. That could be the future for TfL.”

I can’t stand Ken but I’m more and more tempted to give him my second preference vote because of daily crap like this from the ES.

Like everything else the sociopathic, subhuman right fight for, it boils down to wanting a society where it’s one pound, one vote, not one person, one vote.

It’s sometimes hard to work out who’s worth engaging with on this site. There are some who bring new viewpoints, and ideas I hadn’t thought of. And then there are people like you and Sally. And life really is too short to waste it on such imbeciles.

You dont seem like a sociopath Tim, if it makes you feel any better. You just seem like a probably perfectly reasonable moderately wealthy city professional who isnt a sociopath and has to jump through all manner of tangled intellectual assault courses to avoid the monster of cognitive dissonance encroaching on your consciousness.

The sociopaths are the ones a few rungs up, and their lickspittles.

Tim Hardy –
Good point, particularly egregious in that quote is the complete failure to mention that Daniel Moylan is a lunatic tory. He is just quoted as deputy head of tfl as though he is some levelheaded industry professional.

Meanwhile state owned / heavily regulated media across the world have a glittering track record of unbiased truth telling of course.

I’ll take the rough-and-tumble free-for-all we have now, thanks all the same.

Yours faithfully

A. Sociopathic-Lickspittle, Esq.

Quite right. And they hide bad stuff about Johnson inside (eg yesterday on p7) – which lead me to write and complain to them even before reading your article…

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 26 Joe

“No it isnt. I am merely arguing that access to vast quantities of ill-gotten gains shouldnt give you a louder voice than everyone else in a democracy, or else it isn’t a democracy. ”

I totally sympathise with the principle behind this, but what mechanism would you suggest for preventing access to money from increasing people’s ability to be heard? In terms of media, the only thing I can think of is having everything run by the state, which in my opinion would be *more* dangerous than the system we have now. And that’s before you get into the broad category of literature (books, films etc.), which cost money to produce and disseminate, and which can also carry political ideas.

Of course literature is a different matter entirely, I am talking about the news media, anywhere where cost is a barrier to entry. No one individual or public company should be allowed to own more than one paper title or TV channel for a start. Thankfully the internet is helping kill off these undemocratic tools of oligarchy anyway, but in an ideal world legislation would be speeding the process up, not helping it live on, undead.

Yes, this might seem extreme, but that is only through the warped prism of a fucked up society in which the privilege of a few criminals to use their propaganda organs to control society is seen as the same thing as defending free thought.

Of course, no-one accesses this blog for free and gets a biased opinion…

Oh, sorry – it appears I am not paying for reading this after all. I guess that this site needs to be regulated to stop commuters reading it.

After all, apparently only those papers we pay for can be trusted to provide a unbiased account – as the Sun or the Guardian will regularly show by reporting each and every story the same way.

Or perhaps there are just some idiots around. Unlike Chaise (whose normal liberalism has gone missing here) I have no sympathy for anyone who believes that government or courts should regulate the freedom of speech as that is a step towards tyranny. Only by allowing anyone to say what they like (and accept the consequences) can we have freedom – even if that does all biased free newspapers to influence commuters – such as the left-leaning Metro in the Midlands for example…

Joe,

Of course literature is a different matter entirely

If you would like to explain how literature (often explicitly political) can be differentiated from the media without government intervention, feel free. Otherwise, I’ll just regard this as a stupid idea shall I?

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 34 Joe

“Of course literature is a different matter entirely, I am talking about the news media, anywhere where cost is a barrier to entry. No one individual or public company should be allowed to own more than one paper title or TV channel for a start.”

Well, maybe. Literature isn’t a different matter, though, as Watchman points out. It’s just more insidious. If we were to crack down on ownership of mass media – and maybe we should – I suspect we’d see propagandists branching out into other forms of communication. Films would probably be chief among them – it’s amazing how someone can be convinced about a “fact” that’s been related to them by several movies. See the following and its sub-folders for a broad list: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic

I mean, how much do you think the demonisation of socialism in the US has to do with films, TV and books?

38. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 Watchman

“Unlike Chaise (whose normal liberalism has gone missing here) I have no sympathy for anyone who believes that government or courts should regulate the freedom of speech as that is a step towards tyranny. ”

Two points. Firstly, when I said I sympathised with “the principle”, by that I meant concern about capture of the media by the rich. NOT the principle that we should have a totally state-run media or anything like that.

Secondly, while I agree that regulation of freedom of speech can and be a step towards tyranny, so is giving one person or group too much control over the media. In fact, that’s WHY a totally state-run media is a bad thing: too much control in one place (along with the obvious conflict of interests). In the hypothetical situation that one person got control of 95% of the media, I think that would actually be worse than the state having 95% control, because at least the state is in some way accountable. Both are bad though.

The market isn’t interested in freedom of speech and can’t be relied upon to deliver it automatically.

Three scenarios:

Scenario A: state has total media control.

Scenario B: some rich guy called Hubert Murloc has total media control.

Scenario C: state has 20%, Murloc has 20%, four other moguls have 10% each, remainder is divided up between small businesses, charities, party newsheets and the like.

I think it’s pretty clear that scenario C leaves a lot less room for unchecked propaganda and capture of the voting process than A or B.

Chaise,

Apologies about the liberal jibe – I accept your point.

I agree the media should not be controlled by an oligopoly (I doubt a monopoly would be realistically possible) – your scenario C is clearly preferable. I prefer scenario D though, whereby we have a wide choice of sources with low entry barriers – which precludes immediately any regulation of the industry, as regulation raises costs and means that only the rich can enter. The internet is allowing this (assuming stupid ideas such as Chancellor Merkel’s proposed tax on news aggregation are defeated).

I struggle to see any role for government other than perhaps banning acquisition of more than a certain amount of a particular industry (including newspapers or television) – which is not a regulatory cost, but a judicial one. Regulation incurs costs and suits the rich and the oligarchs.

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 39 Watchman

“Apologies about the liberal jibe – I accept your point.”

Is cool.

“I prefer scenario D though, whereby we have a wide choice of sources with low entry barriers – which precludes immediately any regulation of the industry, as regulation raises costs and means that only the rich can enter.”

I’m tentatively inclined to agree here. The internet doesn’t seem in need of regulation, although it’s probably in line for a crackdown of existing laws (libel etc.).

“I struggle to see any role for government other than perhaps banning acquisition of more than a certain amount of a particular industry (including newspapers or television) – which is not a regulatory cost, but a judicial one. Regulation incurs costs and suits the rich and the oligarchs.”

Again, broadly agree. Just to check: what about the role of the state in enforcing things like libel laws? Not intended as a straw man, I’m aware you may have included that stuff automatically.

And that is one problem with the internet. Say someone posts a libellous and damaging comment on a news article read by millions of people. It seems to me that the person making the comment, rather than the site owner or ISP, should be held accountable. But the only way to actually enforce that is to use legislation to ensure that net users can be identified – either that the site owner IS liable unless they can ID the commenter, or that the cops are authorised to try to track down the person’s identity to enforce a civil offence. I can see the argument for both, but they worry me too.

It’s nice see right-wingers again failing to see that there’s any difference between a newspaper taking a political side by printing opinion pieces on its opinion pages, and taking a political side by distorting the facts and outright lying in supposedly factual articles.

But of course, under Rupert Murdoch’s influence, most newspapers in the UK long since abandoned the goal of objective reportage that was once so essential to journalistic standards. Only the (havily regulated) television news continues to maintain any attempt at impartial coverage, and right-wingers are keen to see that last bastion of belief in objective reality done away as soon as possible. We can but hope that some of those Murdochistas responsible for the abandoning journalistic ethics will soon end up behind bars for their various related criminal activities.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  2. John Hurr

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  3. Jason Brickley

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/jr8dJgLh

  4. Gurtej sandhu

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  5. DaveHill

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  6. John McNeill

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  7. etonmess

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  8. Clay Harris

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  9. Martin Baker

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  10. James Ball

    . @libcon is right re: Moody's report on TfL credit downgrade: it has nothing to do with Ken (contrary to Standard) http://t.co/kWAsGFaG

  11. Ben Jones

    The @standardnews pro-Boris stance is getting really embarrassing: http://t.co/PGh5GXqL

  12. Geoff White

    . @libcon is right re: Moody's report on TfL credit downgrade: it has nothing to do with Ken (contrary to Standard) http://t.co/kWAsGFaG

  13. Nick Ryan

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  14. Charles Holland

    Sickening levels of press bias in the London mayoral elections: http://t.co/h1kRTcHj (via @ben_patio)

  15. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/ehDsBLYM

  16. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/RU67A11T

  17. Free spirit

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1mbiPENh via @libcon

  18. Nigel Watson

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/F7REkvCl via @libcon

  19. Sean Dolat

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/jUDDP2MU via @libcon

  20. Rob Wickings

    The Daily Boris strikes again… RT @libcon: The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/dEMNujHX

  21. John West

    Decent piece from @libcon on @standardnews's now amusingly crass shilling for Boris. Just declare and have done! http://t.co/H3U8UqQ0

  22. James Clayton

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/jUDDP2MU via @libcon

  23. Alan Simpson

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  24. sean kenny

    The Evening Standard's lies about TfL and Ken Livingstone http://t.co/8riCuigN @standardnews

  25. mondoagogo : Anna

    The @standardnews pro-Boris stance is getting really embarrassing: http://t.co/PGh5GXqL

  26. Terry Crow

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/hpiR8J1a

  27. david white

    The London Evening Standard has turned into a vile partisan rag imo > | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GNicOUU6 via @libcon

  28. Jude Woodward

    Evening Standard abandons objective journalism w pro-Johnson bias growing as Mayoral election looms #ken4london http://t.co/S088ycWz

  29. sunny hundal

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  30. The Green Party

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2cuF0k0I via @libcon

  31. John McNeill

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  32. Nicholas Ripley

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  33. Richard Hall

    RT @sunny_hundal The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/YDfl6CrU

  34. Jerome Taylor

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  35. Tim McLoughlin

    RT @sunny_hundal: The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/ASzXS0VT

  36. The Tweets of March

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  37. adventuresofboz

    RT @sunny_hundal: The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/AggFKcvk

  38. peter beaumont

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  39. Gary Northfield

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  40. ann brook

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  41. Dave Cross

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/PLmWIjrY via @libcon

  42. Finn Hopson

    The London Evening Standard gives up on Mayoral election journalism http://t.co/QOy9j1wu

  43. bill bold

    The London Evening Standard gives up on any appearance of journalistic integrity for mayoral election by @sunny_hundal: http://t.co/QoAdAjTA

  44. Neil Partridge

    The @standardnews pro-Boris stance is getting really embarrassing: http://t.co/PGh5GXqL

  45. CW Poole

    2 #idiots run amok! The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/YBotEdib

  46. George Czernuszka

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2cuF0k0I via @libcon

  47. Derek Wall

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  48. Peter Coville

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  49. Damien Clarkson

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  50. kate whittle

    RT @anothergreen: Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/T4Of23jA

  51. Chris Paul

    Good piece by @sunny_hundal exposing @standardnews bias against @ken4london campaign http://t.co/IV2J5Nsu Obviously worried Ken can win :)

  52. Arthur Annabel

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/r0xEBVua via @libcon

  53. CW Poole

    3 #idiots run amok! The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism http://t.co/YBotEdib

  54. Politics live blog: Tuesday 13 March 2012 | Politics News and Discussion

    [...] • Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy says the Evening Standard has given up on neutral coverage of… [...]

  55. entertainmentfy

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism …: In recent weeks I've pointed to several blatant… http://t.co/QQZDq4QD

  56. Politics live blog: MPs debate health bill | Birmingham Link

    [...] • Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy says the Evening Standard has given up on neutral coverage of… [...]

  57. Politics live blog: MPs debate health bill

    [...] • Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy says the Evening Standard has given up on neutral coverage of… [...]

  58. Derek Wall

    More poverty and more propaganda, lol every time you read the #EveningStandard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  59. Geoffrey Pearson

    More poverty and more propaganda, lol every time you read the #EveningStandard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  60. Boris Johnson has had a free pass for too long | Sunny Hundal | Dani News

    [...] time around too, the London Evening Standard seems to have given up unbiased journalism in favour of partisan sniping. Johnson lobbied hard to have his friend Sarah Sands installed as [...]

  61. Kirsten Young

    The London Evening Standard gives up on election journalism … http://t.co/tijWAdra

  62. Derek Wall

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  63. keith flett

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  64. Dave Farrar

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  65. Shane McMordie

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  66. GAVIN MARTIN

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  67. Jon (Bambi) Page

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf

  68. James Robertson

    Every time you read the Evening Standard a banker smiles http://t.co/ISVJFLbf





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.